House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks at the National Republican Congressional Committee March Dinner (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Every election cycle, a handful of super PACs and party committees swing and miss, spending most of their millions in support of ultimately unsuccessful candidates.

The honor of “biggest loser” this general election cycle goes to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which spent just 25 percent of its money backing winning candidates or opposing losing ones. The party committee spent more than $2 million in negative ads against 14 different Democratic general election candidates — all but three won their races.

The Congressional Leadership Fund — a super PAC closely tied to the GOP House leadership and the cycle’s top overall outside spender — had a similarly tough night, spending only 32 percent of its money successfully. The group failed to fulfill its pledge to defend the House, spending more than $68 million in support of 24 Republican incumbents who would go on to lose their races.

Conversely, House Majority PAC — the super PAC associated with the Democratic House leadership — had a very good election night. Nearly 82 percent of the group’s money was spent against losers or for winners and its top 14-targeted Republicans were all defeated. It spent more than $39 million to elect 25 House Democratic challengers.

New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s super PACs were particularly successful in their support of House Democrats.

Independence USA PAC — funded almost entirely by Bloomberg — spent $22 million to help 14 Democratic challengers win their House races and had a 89.5 percent success rate on $37.5 million spent in the general election.

It was the only large super PAC to support Oklahoma 5th District Rep.-elect Kendra Horn in her upset victory, shelling out $429,664 days before the election. The super PAC heavily targeted the California 25th District race, aiding Rep.-elect Katie Hill with $4.5 million in positive ads and $568,856 in negative media against incumbent Rep. Steve Knight.

One way to achieve a high success rate is to put all of the eggs in one basket. The most successful group among the top ten general election spenders was New Republican PAC, which spent almost all (96.8 percent) of its money backing Rick Scott’s Florida Senate campaign.

Other single-candidate super PACs did not fare as well, however. The second-biggest such group, DefendArizona, spent all of its money — $17.8 million in the general election — backing Arizona Senate candidate Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and therefore ended up being the biggest spender with a zero percent success rate.

“Dark money” groups didn’t have their best election. Liberal political nonprofits VoteVets and Majority Forward — which heavily targeted Democratic Senate candidates — had success rates of just 34 and 42 percent, respectively.

Aiding big Republican victories in the Senate, America First Action did somewhat better, spending nearly 59 percent of its money successfully. However, it did spend more than $6 million supporting five unsuccessful House incumbents.

Other notably successful groups:

Human Rights Campaign ($2.1 million spent, 97.2 percent success) had the best track record of any group that spent on at least ten different races.

Among groups that spent at least $1 million on the general election, Republican Jewish Coalition ($1.7 million spent) was the only group to spend on multiple races and succeed in all of them.

Of the $1.07 billion in outside spending on the general election, 54.5 percent of it was successful (i.e., spent in favor of winning candidates or against losing candidates). That’s a slight increase from 2016 (48.1 percent) and 2014 (53.6 percent), but still, a fairly even split.

Many environmental advocacy groups, like Environment America and the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), spent millions on the 2018 midterms to ensure Congress is filled with more pro-environment members. So far in 2018, organizations such as the Nature Conservancy and Partnership for Conservation have funded lobbying efforts for policies supporting the environment.

“This is not some distant threat,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, LCV’s senior vice president for government affairs. “The need to combat the climate crisis has never been more important.”

While the consequences of climate change aren’t new information, the U.N. report makes the situation far more dire than previously thought.

Under the Paris agreement between 195 countries, the United States pledged to cut greenhouse emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

The Trump administration also rolled back a number of common-sense environmental laws and regulations, Sittenfeld said.

“We’re dealing with the most anti-environmental administration ever,” Sittenfeld said.

However, during this election cycle, groups like LCV spent millions on a number of House, Senate, governorship and state house races on candidates with pro-environment agendas. And their efforts paid off.

In total, League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund, along with other affiliates, spent an unprecedented $80 million during the midterms. LCV Victory Fund spent $17.5 million on House races and $12.6 million on Senate races.

LCV’s biggest donor is Michael Bloomberg. So far in 2018, the former New York City mayor gave $5 million. Bloomberg pledged to spend $4.5 million to cover the United States’ financial commitment under the Paris agreement after Trump withdrew.

“We’re thrilled that after years of working with an anti-environment House, we are so excited to work with a new, pro-environment House,” Sittenfeld said.

One of these new members is Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Ocasio-Cortez recently drafted a resolution to create a committee and develop “A Green New Deal,” a comprehensive policy to combat climate change. Last week, Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced her support of reinstating the select committee to address the climate crisis.

The League also celebrated the defeats of candidates who the organization considers bad on the environment. LCV classified these candidates as the “Dirty Dozen,” and maintains a list for the House and the Senate.

Environment America, an environmental advocacy organization, spent $15.1 million on the 2018 election cycle, double what it spent in 2016. Environment America Action Fund, the organization’s super PAC, spent $13.1 million, $2.5 million of which went to LCV.

Democrat Jacky Rosen is facing off against Republican Danny Tarkanian in the Nevada 3rd, a fight that has drawn record levels of outside spending for a House race. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

Nevada is on fire, but it’s not the desert heat.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s upcoming retirement has led to an inferno of outside spending — about $80 milliion so far — in the contest for the open seat.

With the advantage in name recognition, Tarkanian — who hasn’t shied away from openly endorsing GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump — has outraised his Democratic counterpart by about $400,000 so far this cycle, and outside spending also favors the Nevada Republican by a little. But Rosen was hand-picked by Reid, the big dog in state politics, and that means she, too, has a lot of help.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has made it clear that supporting Rosen is a big priority for the party by dropping a hefty $3.6 million in independent expenditures into the district. Liberal House Majority PAC — in effect a super PAC extension of the DCCC –has invested another $1.9 million in ads attacking the Republican candidate.

On the other side of the partisan divide, one group has flipped its allegiance. Conservative 501(c) nonprofit Ending Spending spent about $1.6 million supporting Republican candidate Michael Roberson in his failed bid to defeat Tarkanian in the district’s GOP primary, with about half of that going to attacks on Tarkanian. Post-primary, however, the affiliated super PAC Ending Spending Action Fund has spent an additional $1.5 million attacking Democratic nominee Rosen on behalf of Tarkanian.

In total, super PACs, political nonprofits and party committees have plowed a record-breaking $14.7 million into the House race already in their efforts to seize this rare vacancy. Last election cycle, outside groups spent only about $1.9 million in the district.

This is also the first time post-Citizens United that a House race has placed among the top 10 congressional races for outside money. The biggest outside money hub at the House level in 2014, California’s 7th District, attracted $13.8 million in such spending by the end of the cycle, but it ranked below 11 Senate races.

Meanwhile, in the Senate match between Heck and his Democratic counterpart and former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, the candidates have raised $26.7 million so far this cycle — ranking it No. 7 among Senate races — and have also drawn the third-largest level of outside spending in congressional contests. About $43.6 million of it has been spent to benefit Heck and about $36.4 million for Masto.

Mike Pence of Indiana has raised funds for six House races and two gubernatorial campaigns, the second of which was aborted when he was added to the GOP’s presidential ticket. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)

Though divided ideologically, Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mike Pence and Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia have traced similar paths through state and federal politics on their way to being nominated for vice president. Both have served in Congress and as governors, and now hope to assume the government’s second-from-the-top job.

Though they may not discuss it tonight during the campaign’s only vice presidential debate, their common ground extends to fundraising, too — at least in broad strokes. The two have relied on lawyers, Wall Street types and a handful of other well-heeled individuals to raise the copious sums they’ve needed for their past campaigns.

A Hoosier’s hunt for cash

Mike Pence, tonight’s surrogate for GOP White House nominee Donald Trump, was elected to the House six times, collecting $1.1 million for his first run in 2000 and almost $2.7 million for his final contest; his 12-year haul came to more than $10.3 million.

After retirees, who contributed $716,789 to Pence’s congressional campaigns and leadership PAC (it’s not unusual for seniors to be No. 1 on any candidate’s list of top donors), the securities and investment industry — aka Wall Street — was his most generous industry, kicking in $376,311. Lawyers and law firms were third, providing $337,914.

The governor’s top donors fall outside those industries, however. The conservative Club for Growth donated $90,762 to Pence’s congressional campaigns through its PAC and earmarked contributions from individuals. Cummins Inc, an engine manufacturer, and Eli Lilly & Co, a pharmaceutical company, round out Pence’s top three campaign contributors. Employees and PACs of these Indiana-based corporations gave $78,500 and $64,350, respectively.

When Pence ran for governor of Indiana in 2012, he raised more than $14.8 million — including $425,000 from the late Dean White, a billionaire businessman from the state; that made White Pence’s top individual donor that year. Big shots of party cash came via the Republican Governors Association and the Indiana Republican Party, which gave $1.1 million and $811,504, respectively.

Pence also picked up $220,000 and $200,000 contributions from conservative bigwigs like Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who passed away in 2013, and billionaire industrialist David Koch.

After joining the presidential ticket in July, Pence dropped his 2016 re-election bid, having already raised more than $16.1 million. The RGA, Pence’s top funder in 2012, had contributed more than $3 million, and the governor also collected $300,634 from Anthony Moravec, the CEO of Columbus-based Applied Laboratories, Inc., and another $100,000 from David Koch. White, who died in September, also contributed $350,000 to Pence’s 2016 reelection effort.

Trump and the governor will be unable to cultivate much hedge fund or private equity industry cash in 2016 — at least not directly. That’s because the SEC’s so-called pay-to-play rule, implemented in 2010, caps the amount “SEC registered hedge fund advisers” can contribute to sitting state or local officials at $250-$350. Designed to prevent bankers and politicians from exchanging campaign contributions for the lucrative right to manage state pension funds, the rule triggered a Goldman Sachs memo banning certain categories of employees from donating to campaigns that feature a sitting state or local official. The Trump-Pence ticket is specifically listed as an example of a campaign to which employees may not contribute. Are there workarounds? Sure, including gifts to the Republican party.

Pence’s personal finances are less robust than his campaign coffers. His net worth in 2012 was estimated at $211,511. New documents are no more revealing: Pence’s 2016 financial disclosure form reports his $173,860 gubernatorial salary and lists student loans for his children’s education as his only liabilities.

Multiple Kaine candidacies required millions

Tim Kaine has moved relatively quickly between jobs over his political career. He was mayor of Richmond, lieutenant governor and then governor of Virginia, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and finally U.S. senator, the position he still holds, in a span of 18 years.

Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia has had to raise money to run for mayor of Richmond, lieutenant governor and governor, and senator — and a huge part of his job at the DNC involved harvesting cash for his party. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton, File)

For his 2001 lieutenant governor’s race, Kaine raised almost $2.4 million, according to National Institute on Money in State Politics records. At the top, his haul included $50,000 from the DNC and $40,000 from Virginia real estate magnate Gerald Halpin.

When Kaine ran for governor in 2005, he ratcheted up his fundraising efforts, collecting more than $18 million over the course of the cycle. Like Pence, he benefited from hefty cash infusions from the party, including $1.5 million from the DNC and $685,242 from the Virginia Democratic Party. Kaine also earned $662,964 in unitemized (small) donations and did well with unions, too: the SEIU, Laborers Local 980, Virginia AFL-CIO and IBEW each kicked in six-figure contributions.

Among individuals backing Kaine, billionaire Sheila Johnson, who cofounded Black Entertainment Television and now heads Salamander Hotels and Resorts, made six donations worth a total $392,490 that year. Cisco Systems cofounder Sandy Lerner and real estate developer B. Mark Fried each gave Kaine more than $175,000.

After leaving Richmond and serving as the chairman of the DNC (where corralling cash was a major part of the job), Kaine ran in 2012 for the Senate seat fellow Democrat Jim Webb announced he would be vacating. Kaine ultimately outraised Republican former Sen. George Allen in the general election, pulling in $18 million to his opponent’s $14.5 million.

Over the course of his Senate career, Kaine has raised the most cash from lawyers and affiliated PACs, taking in more than $2.7 million. Like Pence, he has benefited from heavy support from retirees, who have given the senator more than $2.1 million. Employees and PACs in the securities and investment industry come in at No. 3 on Kaine’s list, having contributed almost $1.1 million.

Kaine’s top contributor has been JStreetPAC, a liberal pro-Israel group, leads the way. The PAC and individuals earmarking gifts to Kaine through it have provided him with $178,283 during his Senate run and since. Running just behind is the League of Conservation Voters, which also passed along gifts marked for Kaine; it provided $177,129. Employees of Covington & Burling, a D.C.-based law firm, gave more than $100,000.

Kaine’s net worth, estimated to be roughly $1.45 million in 2014, was far below the Senate average of $10.2 million. The senator’s single outstanding liability then was a 15-year mortgage, and his financial reports list his board memberships at the Myotonic Dystrophy Foundation and the US-Spain Council. Kaine’s income tax returns, released in August, show that he and his wife, former Virginia Secretary of Education Anne Holton, together earned $313,441 last year.

While Kaine was lieutenant governor and then governor, he also accepted more than $160,000 worth of gifts, including vacation lodging, clothes and airfare, Politico reported. While the gifts were properly disclosed and legally permissible under Virginia law, the state’s in-kind donation laws recently came into the spotlight when the U.S. Supreme Court in June unanimously overturned former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) ethics conviction, which stemmed from undisclosed gifts and charges of quid-pro-quo corruption.

Pence and Kaine face off at Longwood University in Farmville, Va., tonight at 9 p.m. ET.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/10/pence-kaine-share-long-histories-in-the-fundraising-trenches/feed/0Outdoor clothing industry takes a hike to D.C.https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/06/outdoor-clothing-industry-takes-a-hike-to-d-c/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/06/outdoor-clothing-industry-takes-a-hike-to-d-c/#respondMon, 08 Jun 2015 19:00:53 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=10062Many Americans living and working in our nation’s capital will tell you that last week was not a great time…

Many Americans living and working in our nation’s capital will tell you that last week was not a great time to enjoy the great outdoors. It was, in fact, an excellent week to tote an umbrella around, or put on a rain jacket and boots.

But the outdoor clothing industry is also trying to weather a storm — one involving high tariffs on high-performance outdoor apparel.

The trade group for outdoor retail companies, the aptly named Outdoor Industry Association, spent a record $360,000 in 2014 lobbying Congress on the US OUTDOOR Act and the Affordable Footwear Act, among other issues.

The US OUTDOOR Act was most recently re-introduced in April by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.); cosponsors include Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). The bill aims to reduce or remove tariffs on imported “high-performance recreational apparel” — almost all of which, apparently, is manufactured overseas. Currently, “recreational performance outerwear” is taxed at about 14 percent. The legislation would also establish a fund at the Commerce Department that would distribute money for research on environmentally sustainable textiles. Importers would contribute 1.5 percent of the value of the imported goods to the fund for 10 years, in lieu of the tariff. The tariff-cutting part of the legislation was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee in May as part of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015.

That trade bill also included another measure, for which the industry has argued, that would cut the tariff on certain footwear — a cause championed by many of the same lawmakers (Cantwell, Blunt, Merkley and Shaheen). Originally a stand-alone bill, the provision in the trade legislation was rewritten to focus narrowly on athletic footwear and only reduces the tariff, rather than suspending or eliminating it.

While the sum spent on lobbying by this industry association isn’t enormous — though 2014 marked a personal best — some executives at large, outdoor clothing retailers are also big-time donors to politicians and PACs.

Years of cultivating relationships with Republican lawmakers and supporting their campaign committees financially may begin to pay off tomorrow, as the GOP now controls the Senate — and thus, the Environment and Public Works Committee.

That means some of the industry’s closest friends will lead the questioning of EPA officials at an oversight hearing tomorrow to discuss proposed carbon dioxide regulations for American power plants. The rules, announced last year by the EPA, would expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over big-carbon emitting industries. But those industries are not taking the proposed move lightly, and the affected industries are influential ones in Washington.

Wednesday’s hearing is one battle in a larger war between the Republican-controlled Congress and President Obama on environmental policy. After winning control of the Senate in November, Republicans vowed to fight the President’s agenda to address climate change. Senate Republicans don’t appear to have the ability to completely repeal the EPA rules, but they have vowed to undermine and defund the ability of the EPA to administer them.

The proposed EPA rules, announced in June, will cut carbon dioxide production from power plants and the power sector to 30 percent below 2005 levels. According to an overview published on the EPA website when the rules were first rolled out, power plants are the biggest source of carbon emissions in the country, accounting for roughly a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The plan would have an impact on health and quality of life issues as well: The EPA says that the rules would cut smog pollution by 25 percent, save $55 billion in health care costs, prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths, and cut asthma attacks for children.

The rules would require compliance from the states as well, and the varying levels of cooperation seem to reflect the polarized nature of American politics on the issue in general. Two states that rely heavily on coal power plants, Wyoming and Montana, have adopted different stances on the EPA policies. The state with the Democratic governor, Montana, is embracing compliance with the regulations. The state with the Republican governor, Wyoming, has rejected the rules.

As for money, the difference between giving to Republicans and Democrats on the committee illustrates a contrast between major carbon-based energy industries and the environmental advocacy groups.

The chair of the committee, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has rejected the idea that humans are responsible for changes to the planet’s climate as recently as January, received more money from the oil/gas and electric utilities industries than any other industry. Oil and gas gave $556,700 to the senator’s campaign committee and leadership PAC from 2009 to 2014, making it his biggest industry donor. The electric utilities industry dropped $278,000 into his accounts during that same time, ranking second.

Three of Inhofe’s top four donors in that period were major energy companies that may face repercussions if the EPA tightens its grip on carbon emissions. At the top of the list, Koch Industries employees and PACs donated $45,200, and lobbyists hired by the company donated $9,430. Honeywell came in second with individuals and PACs donating $45,000, while Honeywell lobbyists donated $15,500. Inhofe’s fourth biggest donor was Valero Energy, which donated $40,000 through its PAC.

The other Republicans on the committee received a considerable sum from the two industries as well. Virtually all of the ten other Republicans had oil and gas make their top 20 donor industry lists. At least five had the electric utilities industry make that list. The biggest oil and gas recipient in the committee was Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) with $694,650 coming from the industry. The biggest electric utilities industry recipient was Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who received $322,250 from the industry.

On the minority side of the committee, the oil and gas industry didn’t crack the top 20 for a single current member. The electric utilities industry made it onto the top 20 industries list for Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) , Ben Cardin (D-Md.) , and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), with $155,100, $124,000, and $168,138, respectively. The environment industry did make the top 20 for five of the nine Senators caucusing with the Democratic party, including ranking Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). No Republicans on the committee had the environmental industry on their top 20 industry donor list.

At $169.2 million so far, money spent by these groups that don’t disclose their donors handily outpaces 2010’s previous record for a midterm election, where dark money spending topped out at $135 million. It even, albeit barely, tops the $168.6 million spent in congressional races in 2012.

Though spending by conservative dark money groups makes up the majority, 73 percent, of all reported dark money spending, the overall total is down considerably from 2012 and is comparable to what they spent in 2010. Still, the $124 million in reported spending by conservative dark money organizations in 2014 is more than the combined spending of all liberal dark money groups going back to 1990.

The majority of the increase this cycle is made up of spending by liberal dark money groups, whose outlays have more than tripled since 2010, from $10.7 million to $33 million.

In 2010, only one of the top 10 most active dark money groups was a liberal group, VoteVets.org, and only three liberal groups had reported spending more than $1 million. In 2014, two liberal groups — Patriot Majority USA and the League of Conservation Voters — are among the 10 biggest spenders, and six liberal groups reported spending more than $1 million in congressional races around the country.

More evidence that Democrats have cannonballed into the outside spending pool: The largest disclosed contributions this cycle have gone to super PACs that support Democrats, and the largest growth in dark money spending has been on the left.

Nonparty outside spending as a whole, however, still leans heavily to the right, with nearly $300 million spent by organizations supporting Republicans, compared to just under $217 million spent by pro-Democratic groups. That roster of this cycle’s top donors would look far more conservative if the names of those fueling the political expenditures of dark money groups were disclosed to the public.

And that’s only what the FEC reports say. There’s a lot more dark money spending that goes entirely unreported to the FEC. This important not only because it leaves huge holes in the data, but it’s also what makes it possible for these groups to operate as 501(c) organizations, rather than openly political organizations like super PACs, which have to disclose their donors.

Issue no. 1: Making sure you lose

Hidden from the stats is a pattern having to do with how these groups operate inside and outside the Federal Election Commission’s reporting “windows.” The term refers to a time period — within 60 days before a general election, or 30 days before a primary — during which any ads discussing issues and also mentioning candidates for office must be reported as expenditures to the FEC, even if they don’t ask the public to vote for or against the candidate. There’s no reporting requirement for any ads that run before that time, meaning any official tally of how much is spent is hard to come by.

Most organizations that make issue ads outside of the FEC’s reporting windows aren’t seeking to influence an election or circumvent well-established disclosure rules for political activities. These groups usually spend a small amount of money on an effort clearly linked to their mission as an organization, and once the FEC’s electioneering windows open, they don’t show up as big spenders in the data.

But a relative handful of nonprofit organizations spend heavily on politically charged ads, using the FEC reporting window as a shield for the activity — both as a means to obscure the activity from oversight and to keep their donors secret.

Here’s how it works.

January 2014 opened with new ads from a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization called Americans for Prosperity — the flagship organization in the Koch brothers donor network. The ad, running in North Carolina, showed a woman in front of a plain white background saying “people don’t like political ads” then jumped into an explanation of the shortcomings of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — popularly referred to as Obamacare — as the camera slowly tightened on her face. The ad ends with Senator Hagan’s phone number and a call for viewers to “tell Senator Hagan to stop thinking about politics and start thinking about people.”

As the months went by, this same ad was run in Arkansas, in Colorado, in Louisiana, and elsewhere — each time encouraging voters to call the corresponding fill-in-the-blank Democratic senator who just so happened to be in a very contentious race to keep his or her seat. Though the ads were structured as a discussion about the issues, independent fact-checkers rated the claims made in the ad as “false.”

This ad was the first of many “educational” ads that would run in states with embattled Senate Democrats. From Alaska to New Hampshire and in between, the ads ran throughout the spring and summer, without any of the spending in these states being reported to the FEC. All of the ads ended with a phone number and encouraged voters to call the politicians featured in the ads.

But AFP’s ads didn’t just portray Democratic senators. The group also ran upbeat ads featuring GOP congressmen running, who happened to be running against the Democrats in the group’s negative ads.

One such ad that appeared in late May featured Rep Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who is running to unseat Senator Mark Pryor. The ad discussed no single issue, but simply discussed Cotton’s opposition to moves by “Washington” to “burden farmers with red tape,” as well as his stands against the debt ceiling increase and Obamacare. It closed with a call for viewers to “thank him for standing with Arkansas.”

Another ad run the same month in Colorado praised Rep Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) generally for his positions on everything from energy to healthcare and government spending. Gardner is currently running to replace Sen. Tom Udall (D-Colo.), who has been the subject of many of AFP’s negative ads. AFP’s efforts mentioning Gardner and Cotton were made easier by the fact that both are currently lawmakers in the House looking to move to the Senate. The ads, therefore, are framed not as support for their Senate campaigns but general congratulations for the work they’re already doing in the House.

AFP ultimately ran ads like these in nine of this cycle’s 10 most contentious Senate races. Most followed the same pattern of negative — and generally false or misleading — ads about Democratic senators interspersed with ads showing amorphous appreciation for GOP congressmen who were seeking to oust them.

On Sept. 4, when the FEC’s reporting window opened — requiring all future spending on such ads to be logged with the agency — the Wesleyan Media Project, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, published a report showing that Americans for Prosperity had already run more than 33,000 ads in races around the country, more than any other outside group. Up to that point, and for nearly a month thereafter, the only filings Americans for Prosperity had filed with the FEC were two electioneering communication reports in Kansas.

This isn’t entirely new. Americans for Prosperity has run politically charged ads outside of the FEC’s reporting windows in the past. As the Wesleyan report shows, AFP had bought 8,198 ads through the end of August 2012, but that’s only about one-fourth of its 2014 total over the same period.

Screen captures from a series of web ads run by Americans for Prosperity against candidates who had been the subject of “issue ads” run by AFP

And once the FEC’s reporting window opened? AFP began running ads explicitly advocating for and against the same candidates who had been the subject of its supposedly educational ads for the previous 10 months. Again, in 9 of the 10 most contentious Senate races, AFP began to directly oppose candidates in the race; across the board, those candidates were Democrats.

The push came partly in the form of a series of web ads telling voters to “fire” these incumbent Democrats. The ads recycle the same false claim about Obamacare used in AFP’s earliest “educational” ads.

But it’s not just ads. AFP’s expenditures show the organization has been taking its message house to house, hiring canvassers and phonebank operators. Still more, they are sending mailers and putting up billboards, according to FEC reports.

This visualization shows how the timing works at its most basic level:

A different profile for liberal spending

On the left, the groups that are spending more than ever this cycle have also been spending for months, and as we’ve noted before, their efforts often result in the same kinds of misleading or outright false ads groups like Americans for Prosperity has run. Patriot Majority, in particular, which has spent more than $10 million primarily opposing candidates in the same senate races Americans for Prosperity has focused on. The League of Conservation Voters isn’t far behind with just under $9.5 million in much the same list of races. On paper — at the FEC — both of these groups have spent more than Americans for Prosperity.

However, the principal difference is that spending by these groups — which makes up nearly two-thirds of all liberal dark money reported to the FEC — was reported to the FEC much earlier than was the spending by Americans for Prosperity. Patriot Majority’s first FEC filings in North Carolina date back to February of this year, compared to Americans for Prosperity’s first report in October, despite the fact that both groups were running politically charged ads during roughly the same time. Likewise, in Arkansas, where Patriot Majority has been taking liberties with the truth for quitesome time, its ad buys appear to track with its FEC reports, which go back as far as June 2013. And FEC reports from other top liberal dark money groups like the League of Conservation Voters and VoteVets.org for their spending in the top Senate races align with the actual timing of their ad buys.

Americans for Prosperity, however, isn’t the only organization that uses issue ads as a loophole to understate political activity. In the Wesleyan report from early September, Crossroads GPS, another 501(c)(4) linked to GOP political strategist Karl Rove, was second only to Americans for Prosperity in ad buys by nondisclosing groups, with 16,423 ad buys in 10 contests, six of which were top Senate races. None of that spending had been reported to FEC.

Since the FEC reporting window opened, GPS has spent more than $26 million against Democrats. Most of that spending has been directed at eight of the 10 most contentious Senate races this cycle; in six of them, GPS had already run ads before the reporting window opened.

One of the Senate races Crossroads added to its roster after the FEC window opened, Kentucky, was the only top Senate race Americans for Prosperity hadn’t touched. That race was the sole focus of another group, one of the most notable dark money organizations of the 2014 cycle — which also has close ties to Crossroads GPS.

The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition is a 501(c)(4) social welfare group — as are Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS — whose sole social welfare function appear to be getting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) re-elected. KOC first reported spending to the FEC in early June, but the group sprang to life much earlier than that.

In fact, as early as May 2013, KOC was making ads touting Mitch McConnell’s leadership in the fight against Obamacare. In February 2014, the group ran radio ads warning of President Obama’s War on Coal, saying McConnell has been “fighting Obama’s anti-coal agenda at every turn.”

KOC’s story, as the Center for Public Integrity, laid out in detail recently, is quite extraordinary. Founded in 2008, the day to day operations are handled by Scott Jennings, who has twice served in high-level positions in McConnell re-election campaigns. According to CPI, only the McConnell and Grimes campaigns have run more ads than KOC, and every single one of the 12,000 ads KOC has run in Kentucky — along with all of the ads on the group’s Youtube page — mention either McConnell or Grimes.

All this despite the fact that KOC has never previously raised enough money — $50,000 — to be required to file a detailed tax return with the IRS. So far in 2014, it’s FEC-reported spending alone is more than $7.5 million.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/as-fec-window-opened-subjects-of-dark-money-issue-ads-became-targets-for-defeat/feed/0A Well-Oiled Pipeline Brings Party Cash to Nebraska House Racehttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/09/a-well-oiled-pipeline-brings-party-cash-to-nebraska-house-race/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/09/a-well-oiled-pipeline-brings-party-cash-to-nebraska-house-race/#respondThu, 25 Sep 2014 20:08:57 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=5716In the Second District of Nebraska, a state that would be crossed by the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, an influx of…

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) is facing the biggest challenge of his eight-term career in a race that has drawn significant investments from both parties. (Flickr/Medill DC)

In the Second District of Nebraska, a state that would be crossed by the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, an influx of cash from the national parties is adding fuel to the fire of a competitive House race.

Eight-term incumbent Rep. Lee Terry (R) is facing one of the biggest challenges of his career in State Sen. Brad Ashford. Terry is a longtime proponent of Keystone, which would carry oil from the tar sands in Alberta to the Gulf Coast. In 2011, he sponsored a bill to accelerate approval of the pipeline by bypassing the State Department. More recently, he tried to condition a debt ceiling compromise on the project’s approval. The State Department announced in April that it would delay a decision until after the November elections.

His views on this are evident on his campaign’s balance sheets. Chairman of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, Terry has been a longtime recipient of contributions from ConocoPhillips, one of the oil companies that would use the pipeline if it’s built. ConocoPhillips has given him $12,000 since the 1998 cycle, the year he was first elected to the House. Terry is also the top recipient of funds from HDR Inc, the Omaha-based company that conducted an environmental impact assessment of the pipeline for the state. HDR Inc.’s involvement became controversial when it emerged that it had previously received a $1.2 billion contract from TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline. Terry received $10,000 from HDR this cycle, and over $38,000 throughout his career.

Yet none of the major environmental outside spending groups, like the League of Conservation Voters or the Sierra Club, have invested much in this race. Instead, the contest has become a tug-and-pull between the two parties, an indication of the politically charged nature of the Keystone XL pipeline. Even in Nebraska, residents have been torn between the prospect of gaining thousands of new jobs from the massive construction project and the possibility of leaks spilling into the state’s massive Ogallala aquifer.

Though Terry has outraised his opponent by more than five to one, with $1.8 million in the bank against Ashford’s $320,000 as of June 30, recent surveys suggest that the race is too close for comfort. An August DCCC poll found Ashford leading Terry by a one percent lead.

Both candidates are also being boosted by their colleagues. Terry is receiving more money from leadership PACs than from any other industry. He has overall received close to $158,000 from his fellow Republicans’ campaign committees or leadership PACs, including from party leaders like former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), his successor Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House whip. Meanwhile, Ashford has received $26,000 from his colleagues in the House, including major donations from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/09/a-well-oiled-pipeline-brings-party-cash-to-nebraska-house-race/feed/0The Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act, or Hunting for Cover on Gunshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/the-bipartisan-sportsmens-act-or-hunting-for-cover-on-guns/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/the-bipartisan-sportsmens-act-or-hunting-for-cover-on-guns/#respondTue, 08 Jul 2014 22:52:37 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=4502Despite objections from a handful of Democrats, the Senate voted on Monday to move forward with a pro-hunting bill that has delighted…

Despite objections from a handful of Democrats, the Senate voted on Monday to move forward with a pro-hunting bill that has delighted most gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association.

Introduced by embattled incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act (S. 2363) would unlock funding to build shooting ranges on public land while easing hunting restrictions. But detractors say it is merely a political move designed to provide pro-gun cover for Democratic senators in tough re-election battles.

The bill has caused an uproar among conservation groups because of several contentious measures, key among them a provision to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating lead bullets and other potentially toxic fishing and hunting equipment.

“This is the definition of kowtowing to the NRA,” said Bill Snape, a counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, in an interview with OpenSecrets Blog. The association, he added, “continues to write public policy in this country, not only just on guns but now on hunting in our public land.”

The current bill, which is sponsored by 45 Senators on both sides of the aisle, has received the heavy artillery treatment from influential gun rights groups. Out of the 52 lobbyists who listed the almost identical S.1996 bill of the same name on their disclosure reports in the first quarter of 2014, close to half represented the NRA or the militant hunters’ rights group Safari Club International; the two organizations used both in-house lobbyists and the firm Crossroads Strategies. Lobbying information on the current bill, which was introduced in May, isn’t yet available.

Another provision allows pelts, claws, bacula and other trophies from polar bears hunted before the animals were added to the Endangered Species list in 2008 to be brought into the U.S.

Only 41 hunters, who killed the bears in Canada, would be affected, yet it’s not the first time the measure is being pushed forward by a Democratic senator vying for re-election.

“The lead fight is going to be a central fight in this,” said Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of almost a hundred environmental groups who signed a letter urging Senators to block the bill. “It could very well derail the whole bill.” About a dozen lobbyists for conservation groups also worked on its predecessor, S. 1996. Lead is a toxic metal, and lead bullets often fragment into hundreds of pieces when they enter an animal, contaminating the meat that’s ingested by other species.

On Monday, 11 Democratic senators, including Barbara Boxer (Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, opposed proceeding to vote on the bill in its current form.

“I can’t vote for a measure that makes owning or possessing or using guns more readily or easily usable,” Blumenthal said. “[W]e have failed to act on common-sense, sensible measures that will stop gun violence.”

Another company that has been conspicuously silent on the bill this time around is Cerebrus Capital Management. The private equity firm lobbied for the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, but after the Newtown shootings, it sold its holdings in the conglomerate Freedom Group. Freedom is the parent of Bushmaster Firearms, maker of the AR-15 rifles used in the Newtown shootings that left 26 dead, including 20 children.

It is “a weak bill, doing little but providing cover for anti-gun senators who want a piece of legislation on their record to give their constituents the appearance they are pro-Second Amendment,” said spokeswoman Danielle Thompson in an email.

The NAGR has already backed conservative opponents in some of the key Senate races faced by Democrats sponsoring the bill. It has donated $5,000 to Joe Miller, one of the Republican opponents of Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska; $5,000 to Owen Hill, a Republican challenger to Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado; and $ 4,000 to Greg Brannon, the conservative opponent who lost the Republican primary in North Carolina to Thom Thillis who will now face off against Hagan. The group has also endorsed Rob Maness, a Republican challenger to Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.

There are other indications that this bill won’t be enough for Democrats to disarm the gun lobby. Though Hagan introduced the early version of the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act in February, the NRA has already spurned her in favor of her Republican opponent Thom Tillis; the group endorsed him in April and has spent $82,000 so far to help his bid.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/the-bipartisan-sportsmens-act-or-hunting-for-cover-on-guns/feed/0An Encore for the Center to Protect Patient Rightshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/03/an-encore-for-the-center-to-protect-patient-rightstect-patient-right/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/03/an-encore-for-the-center-to-protect-patient-rightstect-patient-right/#respondWed, 05 Mar 2014 13:00:00 +0000Sean Noble's mammoth group -- which since 2009 has funneled $170 million-plus to conservative organizations involved in politicking -- seemed to be on the outs last year with its main backers. Now, say hello to American Encore.

]]>Sometime last week, one of the largest and most controversial dark money groups adopted a new name.

Two documents suggest the timing of the Center to Protect Patient Rights’ metamorphosis into something called American Encore. In a letter to Congress dated Feb. 25, 60 conservative organizations — including CPPR — voiced support for the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014, which would block the IRS for one year from implementing new rules to define and limit political activity by “social welfare” nonprofits. The letter lashed out at the “draconian” guidelines proposed by the IRS last November, which were open for public comment until Feb. 27.

The bill passed the House last week and now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to die.

The letter echoed concerns voiced by organizations across the political spectrum that the proposed rules are overbroad and burdensome. However, unlike other organizations opposing the possible changes, many of the groups on the letter were renowned for pushing the limits of permissible political activity by 501(c)(4)s, which do not have to disclose their donors to the public.

Nearly a third of the 60 groups made political expenditures that they reported to the Federal Election Commission in 2012. Together, they spent more than $66 million — one-fourth of all 501(c)(4) “social welfare” group spending reported that cycle. That’s nearly double the $34 million spent by all liberal (c)(4)s combined. Even with union spending added, the total only rises to $58 million.

Of course, that’s looking only at FEC-reported spending. Americans for Prosperity, another group that signed the letter, has opted to spend more than $30 million so far running issue ads like this against endangered Senate Democrats in several states; they don’t have to be reported unless they run very close to an election. AFP, in fact, has spent about as much as all the reported spending by super PACs, PACs, 527s and 501(c) nonprofits combined so far in 2014.

CPPR hasn’t reported any political spending, ever — but it has played a key role in financing the politicking of other groups. The organization, first discovered by OpenSecrets Blog in 2012, has acted as an ATM for politically active nonprofits on the right, all in the name of social welfare.

With only a post office box in Phoenix as an address, CPPR has been the linchpin in one of the most complex networks of dark money in the country, unparalleled on the left or, for that matter, anywhere else on the right. Between 2009 and 2012, it funneled more than $182 million in grants to other organizations, with $167 million of that going to nonprofits that reported political spending on the federal level. Most of that money came to CPPR from other nonprofits like TC4 Trust, another 501(c)(4), and Freedom Partners, a 501(c)(6) trade association, which also doesn’t have to makes its donors public.

Initially, the group attracted attention because it had seemingly boundless revenues, but no employees, volunteers, office space or significant operations aside from making grants. Then, in 2012, California’s campaign finance agency found that CPPR had engaged in “campaign money laundering” with its involvement in channeling $15 million through several nonprofits and into the bank accounts of two California PACs working on ballot initiatives. The findings, and the attention they drew, apparently strained relations between the group’s president, Phoenix-based political consultant Sean Noble, and its backers, Charles and David Koch, who had helped to corral donors over the years.

“American Encore,” according to the comment, “advocates for limited government and free enterprise and is committed to protecting individual liberty, including the rights of patients to choose and use their desired medical care providers. It goes on, “American Encore has primarily advanced its policy interests by investing in and conducting research, as well as providing financial support to other organizations in support of shared policy interests.”

The group’s investment in public policy research, though, has heretofore been invisible. Last year, the group was paying consultants, including Noble’s firms, to conduct opposition research and develop ads.

That was only a fraction of the group’s spending, though. American Encore/CPPR gave out more than $112 million in grants to politically active nonprofits that reported more than $127 million in political spending in the 2012 elections. Recipients of American Encore/CPPR funds spent more to influence the 2012 elections than all liberal nonprofits, including unions, have spent starting with the Citizens United decision in 2010 and going to the end of February 2014.

Another of the three groups listed on the IRS comment, American Commitment, was founded by Noble in 2012. It has received the bulk of its funding over two years from American Encore/CPPR and, later, that group’s top funder, Freedom Partners.

In its comment to the IRS, American Commitment is described as an organization that “engages in critical public policy debates over the size and instrusiveness of government through direct advocacy, strategic policy analysis, and grassroots mobilization.” Yet, American Commitment spent 96 percent of its funds in 2012 on “media production and polling,” using the same firms it listed in its political spending reports filed with the FEC.

During the summer of 2012, American Commitment ran a number of ads that did not have to be reported to the FEC. In one ad criticizing Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the group claimed that the Affordable Care Act “imposes the largest tax increase in history on the middle class.” That garnered a “pants-on-fire” rating from Politifact, which checked four of the ads. The best the group rated on the truth meter was “mostly false.”

The fact that organizations like American Commitment, a group that describes itself as engaging in “critical policy debates” and conveying “timely, effective public policy research,” are running misleading ads slamming politicians predominantly or entirely of one party in tight races highlights the complexity of the task the IRS is facing in its rulemaking.

The third group on the IRS comment, the Center for Individual Freedom, has received two large cash infusions from Crossroads GPS — the large (c)(4) formed by GOP strategist Karl Rove — since Citizens United. It has spent almost exactly the sum of those grants on ads critical of Democrats in federal races. In 2010, CIF told the IRS it spent more than $2 million on politics, none of which was reported to the FEC.

Like American Encore/CPPR and American Commitment, CIF doesn’t appear to have much grassroots support, having received more than two-thirds of its revenues in 2012 from Crossroads GPS and one other unknown organization.

However, CIF does engage in major litigation related to its mission. For example, it was CIF, along with the Hispanic Leadership Fund, that appealed the Van Hollen v. FEC decision in 2012. The case dealt directly with disclosure of donors to nonprofits that engage in certain kinds of reportable political activities. CIF ultimately won and the issue was sent back to the FEC for a possible rulemaking.

Not Going Anywhere

The emergence of American Encore from the scandal and turmoil of CPPR last year indicates some role for the organization in the current election cycle, whether Noble has patched up relations with his benefactors or is going it alone.

But Noble and his allies signal no intent to change their ways when it comes to revealing the identities of their donors. The IRS comment speaks forcefully about the importance of free speech, but just half of one paragraph mentions donor disclosure, concluding that such a requirement “would raise additional First Amendment issues.” It cites in part the 1958 NAACP v. Alabama case in which the Supreme Court said a 501(c) organization — in that instance, one facing the very real threat of physical harm — could not be compelled to reveal the names of its financial supporters.

Unmentioned are the majority’s words in the Supreme Court’s 8-1 Citizens United decision that “prompt disclosure” would allow citizens to “see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

So far in this election cycle, groups that don’t disclose their donors have already spent 300 percent more than they had at the same point in 2012, which was a record-setting — and presidential — election year. And there’s evidence that liberal groups — outspent more than 7-to-1 in 2012 — won’t be left behind: They’ve already spent nearly seven times more than they had by now two years ago.